The present invention relates to bird feeders. More particularly, the present invention relates to bird feeders with retractable feeder bodies for the purpose of accessibility for filling.
Bird feeders are one of the most popular lawn and garden accessories and are well known to birding aficionados. In the usual case, a bird feeder comprises a body for holding bird feed, where the body has some number of holes or slots for the distribution of the bird food. Since bird food is usually a variety of seeds (as compared to suet or peanut butter or the like) the food is easily distributed through such apertures. In addition to the body, the bird feeder typically has some sort of apparatus for supporting it at height in order to place the food in a location desirable for the birds and away from predators lurking on the ground. Sometimes such feeders include design attributes for protecting access to the bird food from squirrels and other seed eaters, such design attributes including shields, baffles, barriers and the like.
Given the traditional approach to bird feeders and to bird feeding in general, certain long standing problems have emerged that are addressed in the present invention. One chief problem is the contamination of the bird feeder itself with bird feces or droppings. Bird feces are problematic for a number of reasons including health, staining, and just the unpleasantness of dealing with the substance. Bird feces are not as dangerous as the waste from other animals but accumulations can be sources for pathogens such as histoplasmosis, and cryptococcosis not to mention other threats to human health. Direct contact with bird feces is advised and in the typical bird feeder this is difficult when the user is attempting to re-supply the feeder with food. In many bird feeder designs the user may have to open the feeder up by grasping the top of the unit which is usually the most contaminated. In other designs the sides of the unit can be fouled as well. Thus it is a very important issue (supported by consumer surveys) for the user to have a bird feeder that avoids the need for direct contact with soiled surfaces.
Another problem associated with typical bird feeders is the re-supply procedure for the filling the feeder with bird food, e.g. seed. Many times (as mentioned above) the user may be compelled to open up the top of the bird feeder in order to refill it. Depending on the manner in which the feeder has been installed, this can be a dicey proposition especially if it requires the use of a ladder or stool. Even without the need for a ladder or stool, the feeder is usually at or above chest height meaning that the feed has to be raised to that level and poured into the feeder. For many people this can be difficult and even dangerous if one is suffering from arthritis or rotator cuff problems or the like since the ergonomic considerations for this approach are horrifically wrong. The lifting issues aside, the ability to control the amount of feed being dispensed is made more difficult through this approach as well, leading to the loss of seed/food through accidental overfilling at times.
One of the ways the foregoing problems have been handled in the prior art has been through the use of bird feeders that have feeder bodies that separate and which can be lowered for re-supply purposes and then retract back to their normal position. Examples of these are well known although the prior art bird feeders have not been completely satisfactory and at times expose users to the bird feces, or substantially increase the weight of the bird feeder, or make it difficult for a user to access the feeder body. These and other deficits in bird feeder designs have left the consumer with a less than perfect solution.
Approaches that have been taken in the prior art include Gigliotti (U.S. Pat. No. 2,804,844) where a bird feeder is mounted onto a vertical post and parts of the bird feeder assembly, such as the roof, feeder body (hopper) and platform can slide vertically on the vertical post. This allows the user the ability to gain access to the feeder body for re-supply purposes when the roof is moved upwards on the vertical post. In this instance, however, the access is restricted and requires the user to contort his/herself in order to conduct the re-supply.
Another approach is typified by Stone (Patent Application No. 2008/0022936) where the bird feeder has a cable running centrally through the longitudinal axis of the bird feeder. One end of the cable is affixed to an anchor point for suspending the bird feeder in the appropriate location. The other end of the cable is affixed to a spring coil assembly that rolls the cable up onto a spool located in the base of the feeder. Thus the user can grasp the base of the feeder and pull it down, thereby overcoming the spring biased on the spool, playing out cable as the bird feeder is brought down to a height where the user can access the unit. In this approach the user still has to remove the top portion of the feeder to provide access for re-supply. In addition, it appears that the user will also be confronting the real likelihood of exposure to bird feces when pulling down the design as presented. Further, the bird feeder approach of Stone locates the cable and coil assembly within the bottom of the feeder, with the effect that the whole feeder assembly is supported entirely by the spring biased coil assembly. This undue burden on the coil assembly makes it difficult to calibrate the spring bias to cover the conditions when the feeder is loaded with food and when its empty and it also decreases the lifetime of the coil assembly as the spring bias becomes fatigued over time. This leads to earlier failures of the Stone bird feeder and with the prospect that the user will be looking to replace the coil assembly (or components therein) or to merely find another bird feeder altogether. Lastly, the pathway for the cable in Stone requires that it be routed through a centrally located tube running axially through the center of the feeder body. The cable will wear on the tube over time which not only leads to pre-mature failure of the unit, but it means that fragments of the tube and the cable will be ejected into the food supply contained within the feeder body. This unnecessary contamination of the bird food is a contradiction for the users who have purchased the feeders for the benefit of the birds in the first instance.
While the prior art devices have addressed some problems associated with bird feeding and bird feeders, the approaches are not as effective as the methods of the present invention. The objectives long sought by users in the hobby of bird feeding are not solved by the approaches taken in the prior art and it is asserted that the methods and practices of the present invention achieve, for the first time, these long sought after objectives.